To be honest I thought the same.
Remember in his early matches we used to dominate midfield but never look like scoring. Some excellent patient possession but hardly any goal mouth action at either end. It was a massive culture shock for msny of our fans who preferred the more exciting “hoof ball”.
Thought he was on the right track, we just needed more urgency up front. Robson received criticism for the slow build ups and the fans made it clear he needed to be more direct, so Robson seemed to change her style to being more direct but some of the players weren’t suited to hoof ball so we struggled..Also the entertainment value was low as the players were stuck between styles and didn’t seeem to know what they were doing.
It’s always the difficult balancing act between getting results or providing entertainment.
Exactly this.
I read an article earlier this season which was written in the context of the legacy that Pulis leaves at clubs where he manages. Essentially, the proposition was that, history shows that it takes the majority of clubs who have had a prolonged period of playing a relatively direct style, a long time to effect a change of culture if they look to introduce a passing/possession style game.
The reason advanced is that managers of that ilk, will build a squad of players with particular characteristics suited to a direct style of play, which, without the benefit of huge finances, it can take a several seasons to overhaul and will lead to a period in the doldrums.
The conclusion was that Pulis and managers like him, could provide short-term fixes but have a limited shelf life at a club (primarily because the fans get bored) and over the long-term, their effect can more often be 'toxic' for the club. WBA and Stoke have arguably seen that. In fact, Stoke have compounded it by having a period of Rowett's style this year. They could well take a while to sort themselves out, albeit they have parachute money to assist for a couple more years.
Robson arguably found himself in such a position in 2007. Some good players, who ostensibly should have been capable of getting us back up, were brought in but it always felt that we still needed '1 or 2 more' to finish the overhaul. Given that we arguably needed 4 players just to replace what Jagielka gave to the squad, that probably isn't surprising.
McCabe showed ambition to a point, but instinctively, he is not an ambitious man and he quickly re-trenched after the initial West Ham-fuelled anger started to abate, and McCabe has seen that signing Beattie has not instantly put us at the top of the league.
Consequently, when Robson stated that he needed a fulcrum to control the midfield in a possession style of play (Ivan Campo), and someone to provide the bullets for the potent array of strikers at our disposal (Giannakopolous), McCabe baulked at further spending. Similarly, when Cahill was available on a permanent transfer for £1.5m, the shutters had come down on further spending. They could have been the signings to make it all click into place but it would have required an investment that was beyond McCabe's comfort zone.
We, therefore, ended up with a squad that, in the crucial midfield area, was still suited to the old style of play notwithstanding the quality added elsewhere. As such, it is no real surprise that Blackwell was able to come in and instantly get a tune out of it and go on a terrific run for the remainder of the season.
